Even the most hard-core libertarians will not be in full agreement with LP issues. There will always be some issues where a libertarian's view(s) will deviate from standard LP tenets.

So be honest and tell us how your personal view(s) might go against the collective libertarian mind-set.

I have two:

Open Borders.

I admit the current immigration policy is a mess and in dire need of comprehensive reform. But open borders? Nah. There are too many people who want to come to the US with the sole ambition of causing harm and mayhem. Immigrants entering the US need to be properly vetted, imo.

OSHA/ Safety in the Workplace

This is one government agency I believe is necessary. They saved my life. During my field work in communications, I was often working around extremely high voltages [200 kVA]. OSHA mandated that each tech be provided a Hi-Voltage inductive tester - simple trigger-operated proximity device that tells when a voltage over 120v is detected.

It's a long story - suffice it to say that this thing saved my life. On two seperate occasions!

Even the most hard-core libertarians will not be in full agreement with LP issues. There will always be some issues where a libertarian's view(s) will deviate from standard LP tenets.

So be honest and tell us how your personal view(s) might go against the collective libertarian mind-set.

I have two:

Open Borders.

I admit the current immigration policy is a mess and in dire need of comprehensive reform. But open borders? Nah. There are too many people who want to come to the US with the sole ambition of causing grief and mayhem. Immigrants the US need to be properly vetted, imo.

OSHA.

This is one government agency I believe is necessary. They saved my life. During my field work in communications, I was often working around extremely high voltages [200 kVA]. OSHA mandated that each tech be provided a Hi-Voltage inductive tester - simple trigger-operated proximity device that tells when a voltage over 60v is detected.

It's a long story - suffice it to say that this thing saved my life. Twice!

I'm a libertarian to maximize my liberty by minimizing government. What I mean by that is that when reducing government is at the point where reducing it more reduces my liberty rather than increasing it, it's at the appropriate side. Things like police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property rights, management of limited resources must be generally recognized by the people, and that general recognition is government.

I totally agree on open borders. They reduce my liberty in many ways, they do not increase it. Financially (welfare, education), crime (criminals).

On OSHA, I acknowledge your points in your case, but overall, OSHA is a beligerant, anti freedom tool of a tyrannical State. They do way more damage and lead to so much unemployment in this country by damaging and destroying industry. I would also argue that the damage they did leads to a lot of the conditions then needed to save you from.

The LP has their heads shoved up their asses on their opposing the Fair Tax, which is a completely libertarian concept other than the prebate. Nothing's perfect.

They consider opposition to a national ID to be one of the most basic libertarian principles, which is moronic since that horse is out of the barn. Everyone has one of 50+ IDs now. They have access to it all. It's really a game which goes back to their support of open borders.

While I generally agree on their military policies, it's an example of one of the many litmus tests they have. For example they use that to oppose Neal Boortz who has done more to further the party than maybe anyone. He's certainly up there.

The LP is more libertarian than the other parties, but I don't consider them to be any paragon of libertarianism. They are more P than L

Even the most hard-core libertarians will not be in full agreement with LP issues. There will always be some issues where a libertarian's view(s) will deviate from standard LP tenets.

So be honest and tell us how your personal view(s) might go against the collective libertarian mind-set.

I have two:

Open Borders.

I admit the current immigration policy is a mess and in dire need of comprehensive reform. But open borders? Nah. There are too many people who want to come to the US with the sole ambition of causing harm and mayhem. Immigrants entering the US need to be properly vetted, imo.

OSHA/ Safety in the Workplace

This is one government agency I believe is necessary. They saved my life. During my field work in communications, I was often working around extremely high voltages [200 kVA]. OSHA mandated that each tech be provided a Hi-Voltage inductive tester - simple trigger-operated proximity device that tells when a voltage over 120v is detected.

It's a long story - suffice it to say that this thing saved my life. On two seperate occasions!

Good post Chief! So I'm going to give you an honest reply whether you like to hear it or not.

It's o.k. to point out the inconsistencies in libertarian beliefs. Many exist. Or maybe I should say, at the risk of offending, nearly all of the libertarian notions will raise disagreements from within. Few don't but that's what I'm hear to catch so nobody will get away with trying to ignore them.

Your motive for doing this is a clear indication that the examples are starting to build up in your own mind to the point of needed to get some release. I take credit for a good portin of that because I've been bringing a lot of reality to the forefront.

p.s.

I can help you on OSHA because I've worked as a safety professional on behalf of the workers. All you need to do on that one is just say that most of the regulations need to be stricken from the books. Just say they're over kill and the libertarian needs may be satisfied. And don't be specific because I'll kick you ass all over the block on each and every one of them.

But if you're solid on OSHA, and contrary to the libertarian line, the stand firm on it and don't take any of the bullshit that people like the resident pig tries to sell you.

Here's your challenge to stand up like a man, or fold your tent:

Quote:

On OSHA, I acknowledge your points in your case, but overall, OSHA is a beligerant, anti freedom tool of a tyrannical State. They do way more damage and lead to so much unemployment in this country by damaging and destroying industry. I would also argue that the damage they did leads to a lot of the conditions then needed to save you from.

I would challenge that shit in detail but it's a waste of time with that pig. He's afraid of me and has to cover his tracks with a troll video. He hasn't the knowledge or the ability to argue that issue in any detail.

Even the most hard-core libertarians will not be in full agreement with LP issues. There will always be some issues where a libertarian's view(s) will deviate from standard LP tenets.

So be honest and tell us how your personal view(s) might go against the collective libertarian mind-set.

I have two:

Open Borders.

I admit the current immigration policy is a mess and in dire need of comprehensive reform. But open borders? Nah. There are too many people who want to come to the US with the sole ambition of causing harm and mayhem. Immigrants entering the US need to be properly vetted, imo.

OSHA/ Safety in the Workplace

This is one government agency I believe is necessary. They saved my life. During my field work in communications, I was often working around extremely high voltages [200 kVA]. OSHA mandated that each tech be provided a Hi-Voltage inductive tester - simple trigger-operated proximity device that tells when a voltage over 120v is detected.

It's a long story - suffice it to say that this thing saved my life. On two seperate occasions!

I kind of agree with you on the open borders thing. However, if the welfare state were completely abolished and our rights to self defense were not restricted then I don't think I would have a problem with open borders.

Another point I do not agree with is abortion. I understand why many support it as long as no government money is funding it. But I see human life that is worth protecting the moment there is unique human DNA. Even though it is entirely dependant on the mother it is its own unique individual and not just a clump of cells. Personal responsibility is an important thing for libertarians. You are responsible for your own actions. Also since we are able to rationalize killing the unborn even though there is unique human life you can feasibly rationalize taking any life at anytime. That is a dangerous thing.

There are some countries that are starting to push for after birth abortions of newborns because they are still dependent on a caretaker.

I kind of agree with you on the open borders thing. However, if the welfare state were completely abolished and our rights to self defense were not restricted then I don't think I would have a problem with open borders

Open borders is great if countries are relatively economically balanced, like the Schengen Area. But allowing that many people that far economically below the US to come here presents a lot more issues than just the welfare State and the right to defend ourselves.

Another point I do not agree with is abortion. I understand why many support it as long as no government money is funding it. But I see human life that is worth protecting the moment there is unique human DNA. Even though it is entirely dependant on the mother it is its own unique individual and not just a clump of cells. Personal responsibility is an important thing for libertarians. You are responsible for your own actions. Also since we are able to rationalize killing the unborn even though there is unique human life you can feasibly rationalize taking any life at anytime. That is a dangerous thing.

There are some countries that are starting to push for after birth abortions of newborns because they are still dependent on a caretaker.

The question isn't what is your view on abortion. The question is by what right do you authorize government to use the force of guns to force a woman to carry a fetus in her own body? I do agree that no one should ever force you to have an abortion if these are your views

Open borders is great if countries are relatively economically balanced, like the Schengen Area. But allowing that many people that far economically below the US to come here presents a lot more issues than just the welfare State and the right to defend ourselves.

The question isn't what is your view on abortion. The question is by what right do you authorize government to use the force of guns to force a woman to carry a fetus in her own body? I do agree that no one should ever force you to have an abortion if these are your views

Clearly a need is being expressed in this conversation. Can you guess what that need is yet pig?

It's the need to choose sides and start another mini-pseudo-libertarian party that oppose half the posters on this site!

Would there be enough congruity in libertarian ideals to narrow it down that quickly.

Or would it be much better to start a new libertarian party for each and every individual?

the only way we're going to be able to answer that is to wait and see if two can agree on anything of substance. LOL

Open borders is great if countries are relatively economically balanced, like the Schengen Area. But allowing that many people that far economically below the US to come here presents a lot more issues than just the welfare State and the right to defend ourselves.

That is a very good point. And it could have both positive effects as well as negative.

Quote:

The question isn't what is your view on abortion. The question is by what right do you authorize government to use the force of guns to force a woman to carry a fetus in her own body? I do agree that no one should ever force you to have an abortion if these are your views

I explained my reasoning behind my opinion for a reason. I assumed that you could come to the same conclusion I did even if you do not agree with it.

By what right do we authorize government to use the threat of violence against parents to force them to raise and educate a child that was birthed? The rationale I often see is that because they made the concious decision to conceive and birth the child then they are responsible for caring for, raising and educating him/her until adulthood. This is assuming they do not attempt to put it up for adoption or make use of safe haven. As I see the unborn as having the same rights as a birthed child I see it as no different than requiring a parent to care for or support their child.

But I don't often talk about abortion seeings as it is nothing more than a talking point. There is zero chance of these laws being changed until society manages go expand their morality.

Additionally. Since abortion is legal, and if we are going to say the unborn have no rights then to be in keeping with equal protection father's aught to have the right to a sort of financial abortion. If the mother is able to opt out of motherhood the father should be able to as well.

Additionally. I don't exactly agree with most libertarians views on age of consent. From what I understand many agree that a teen should be able to make decisions about their sexual desires at sixteen years old and that the parents can not stop them from making those decisions. They can choose to have a baby, or to abort a baby in my state at sixteen. They can also consent to sex with a much older person at that age. Be it a sixteen year old girl and a 70 year old man, or whatever. Would you agree that a young man or young woman aught to be able to make those decisions at that age?

My issue here is that even though the teen is legally allowed to make these decisions for themselves without even notifying their parents, the parents are still required to provide support for them. Even if that teen decides to move out the parents are required to provide financial support.

I believe that if reproductive rights are gained by a teen at that age then if they choose to have a kid they need to be considered a legal adult as well.

That is a very good point. And it could have both positive effects as well as negative.

I explained my reasoning behind my opinion for a reason. I assumed that you could come to the same conclusion I did even if you do not agree with it.

By what right do we authorize government to use the threat of violence against parents to force them to raise and educate a child that was birthed? The rationale I often see is that because they made the concious decision to conceive and birth the child then they are responsible for caring for, raising and educating him/her until adulthood. This is assuming they do not attempt to put it up for adoption or make use of safe haven. As I see the unborn as having the same rights as a birthed child I see it as no different than requiring a parent to care for or support their child.

But I don't often talk about abortion seeings as it is nothing more than a talking point. There is zero chance of these laws being changed until society manages go expand their morality.

Additionally. Since abortion is legal, and if we are going to say the unborn have no rights then to be in keeping with equal protection father's aught to have the right to a sort of financial abortion. If the mother is able to opt out of motherhood the father should be able to as well.

Additionally. I don't exactly agree with most libertarians views on age of consent. From what I understand many agree that a teen should be able to make decisions about their sexual desires at sixteen years old and that the parents can not stop them from making those decisions. They can choose to have a baby, or to abort a baby in my state at sixteen. They can also consent to sex with a much older person at that age. Be it a sixteen year old girl and a 70 year old man, or whatever. Would you agree that a young man or young woman aught to be able to make those decisions at that age?

My issue here is that even though the teen is legally allowed to make these decisions for themselves without even notifying their parents, the parents are still required to provide support for them. Even if that teen decides to move out the parents are required to provide financial support.

I believe that if reproductive rights are gained by a teen at that age then if they choose to have a kid they need to be considered a legal adult as well.

You're in for a big letdown is you think you're going to get a reasonable discussion with that one. The first time you make a point it can't handle you're going to get a fist full of it's pigshit slammed back in your face.

I'll address that post in detail, at leas the part that's worthy of notice.